That is what I thought but can that woofer really play high enough for a 2-way designs? any off-axis measurements so we can see where it dips > 6dB @ 45 deg off axis (beaming point, I believe) ?
Last edited:
Hi,
Forgive for being the lone voice of reason. However it is not easy to blend a ribbon and a cone woofer together so that the results make sonic sense. The Fountek Ribbon probably needs at least a third order crossover to avoid overloading it.
Running a 15" Guitar Woofer up to 1.5KHz is asking for trouble, as it quite possibly has a very non-flat frequency response with significant resonances. One would have to have at least a decent and detailed frequency response plot of the driver available.
Even so I would see a 3-Way as severely challenging.
If you want to go 2-Way, the 600Hz capable Horn/Ribbon combo I am using in a kit speaker that will soon be released has also been tested with a 15" Woofer, though it may break your budget. For this I could give you a crossover that will work. You can have a look here:
Eureka! 100db from a 30L Cabinet - 65hz to 25khz | Diy HiFi Supply
If you really want to go that way, e-mail diyhifisupply. I know theu have stock of the ribbon/horn combo and all crossover parts.
Well, again, in the end it is your funereal, not mine. I still would suggest that the Peavey/Audax/Fostex 3-Way has a good chance to sound good without too much tweaking and has a near certainty of getting a good and working end result. The two-way would be WAY more challenging.
But please pick your poison. BTW, unless you full detailed models of the drivers that follow the actual frequency response of the drivers one should not consider the results of simulations as anything but basic feasibility studies that will tell what absolutely cannot work.
Even a full and highly complex sim with driver models that are quite close to reality tends to give useless crossover configurations two in three times, looks good on paper, sounds bad in practice.
Ciao T
PS, have a look at AMR's LS-77. I designed that, it too around 10 Different rounds of the final crossover technology and many more tries of fundamental topologies untill we had something we felt we could sell...
First, for the 2 way I will use the Fountek NeoCd2.0M as a tweeter that not only is a real good one but it also looks awesomeThen later when I upgrade to the 3 way I can keep it and add the Audax PR170M0 and the final result would be really cool sounding and looking.
The second reason is that now will all the information that I learned form you guys, I am kinda curious to see the differences between a good 2 way and a good 3 way later.
Forgive for being the lone voice of reason. However it is not easy to blend a ribbon and a cone woofer together so that the results make sonic sense. The Fountek Ribbon probably needs at least a third order crossover to avoid overloading it.
Running a 15" Guitar Woofer up to 1.5KHz is asking for trouble, as it quite possibly has a very non-flat frequency response with significant resonances. One would have to have at least a decent and detailed frequency response plot of the driver available.
Even so I would see a 3-Way as severely challenging.
If you want to go 2-Way, the 600Hz capable Horn/Ribbon combo I am using in a kit speaker that will soon be released has also been tested with a 15" Woofer, though it may break your budget. For this I could give you a crossover that will work. You can have a look here:
Eureka! 100db from a 30L Cabinet - 65hz to 25khz | Diy HiFi Supply
If you really want to go that way, e-mail diyhifisupply. I know theu have stock of the ribbon/horn combo and all crossover parts.
Well, again, in the end it is your funereal, not mine. I still would suggest that the Peavey/Audax/Fostex 3-Way has a good chance to sound good without too much tweaking and has a near certainty of getting a good and working end result. The two-way would be WAY more challenging.
But please pick your poison. BTW, unless you full detailed models of the drivers that follow the actual frequency response of the drivers one should not consider the results of simulations as anything but basic feasibility studies that will tell what absolutely cannot work.
Even a full and highly complex sim with driver models that are quite close to reality tends to give useless crossover configurations two in three times, looks good on paper, sounds bad in practice.
Ciao T
PS, have a look at AMR's LS-77. I designed that, it too around 10 Different rounds of the final crossover technology and many more tries of fundamental topologies untill we had something we felt we could sell...
Funny you should ask! I was just working at that.
Here is the driver SPL plot. This includes the baffle step into full-space (4∏), so I'll explain that shortly...
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Now, here is the polar response for that driver and it explains a few things...
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The SPL plot shows a dip at 550 Hz. Look at the polar plot and you see that there is a transition from full-space (4∏) to half-space (2∏) and it is where the transducer starts beaming.
From that point onward it continues to build in amplitude and the off-axis response gets narrower and narrower until we hit 2 kHz and it starts to drop again.
LEAP seems to display a lot of interesting data that BassBox Pro can not. The model for the driver is right out of LEAP's driver library. I can't really say if it is 100% accurate, but I think that Vance Dickason did these measurements (I could be wrong).
If I model this in 2∏ space the lower end is a flat line, instead of dropping off. In a real room the bottom end should be somewhere in between the two.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Here is the 2∏ polar plot...
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Interesting stuff?
I need to add the tweeter next. I'll see if I can get that modeled tomorrow, then I should be able to transition to designing the crossover if things match up.
Thanks for your inputs. Maybe we should revisit the 3-way. From my initial 2-way analysis it seems that there are indeed some issues with beaming.
Your thoughts?
Well, I only have the Peaveys, the rest I have to buy so it can very well be the 2 way or the 3 way.
Thorsten, as I said before, I am only going for the 2way because it seems to be cheaper and simpler but if things start to get more complicated and maybe the price difference is not that much, then by all means I will try to make a 3 way as you suggested.
I think that is better to explore all possibilities to make sure everything goes as smooth as possible when I get to build it.
As Loren is saying now, maybe with the new calculations, things may show that a 3way could be the solution, I dont know.
As they say, 2 heads thing better than 1 and your 2 heads know a lot about this so...
Thanks again guys...
Leo
Thorsten, as I said before, I am only going for the 2way because it seems to be cheaper and simpler but if things start to get more complicated and maybe the price difference is not that much, then by all means I will try to make a 3 way as you suggested.
I think that is better to explore all possibilities to make sure everything goes as smooth as possible when I get to build it.
As Loren is saying now, maybe with the new calculations, things may show that a 3way could be the solution, I dont know.
As they say, 2 heads thing better than 1 and your 2 heads know a lot about this so...
Thanks again guys...
Leo
Hi,
Okay, to give a little more reasoning, as to why I think the 3-Way as suggested is a better choice:
1) This kind of speaker exists and is used in both PA and Studio Applications, pretty much for the last two decades, with similar horn tweeters and 15" Woofers complementing an Audax PR170M0.
The german Klang & Ton Mag had a design using all Audax Drivers (15" Audax pro Woofer, the earlier version of the PR170M0 and a horn tweeter not very different in nature to the Fostex), all with a 2nd order crossover at 500Hz and 5KHz.
2) One key determining factor in speaker sound in room is the off axis response. A 15" Driver will not do too well at higher frequencies, on the other hand the Ribbon will have a very wide dispersion just above the crossover. This means the off-axis response will be quite non-flat and the speaker will not sound well balanced, no matter what on-axis response simulations predict.
On the other hand the Audax Driver will match the off axis response of the Woofer quite well and will show an ever narrowing dispersion as frequency rises and it does so quite smoothly and the Fostex horn tweeters dispersion dovetails well with the Audax driver.
The net result is a speaker with a pretty flat on axis response and a response that smoothly falls off the more with rising frequency the more we move off axis. So the overall sound will be a little "warm".
3) Using (as I suggested) first order filters only means you have some leeway for errors. First order crossovers placed in an essentially linear frequency range of both drivers almost always work okay (unless grossly messed up), the higher order the crossover the larger the chance for things to go badly wrong.
So, I repeat, a basic 3-Way with your woofer, an Audax Wideband/Midrange and Fostex Horn Tweeter (mainly selected for low cost) with first order crossovers at around 400Hz and around 8KHz will actually give you a working speaker with a great likelyhood of sucess.
It may be in the end less good as the 2-Way with ribbon and all IF that speaker is gotten right "just so", but the likelyhood of getting it "just so" is small, unless you have a lot of experience, decent measurement gear and a lot of time.
You probably also would need to construct a waveguide for the Ribbon to control it's excessively wide horizontal dispersion which in turn usually means you need to restore the frequency response to flat by equalisation.
Trust me, it is not trivial. A 2-Way speaker looks easier, but that is only the case if you have a classic "2-Way" with a crossover at 2-4KHz and even these are not that easy.
My suggestions for a woofer enclosure BTW would mean a box of around 150 Liter in the golden ratio (seems around 90cm X 55cm X 38cm interior dimensions would seem okay) tuned to around 40Hz.
I would recommend a single slot port 35cm wide, 10cm high and 28cm deep at the very bottom of the box. This will give around 40Hz tuning.
I would as said place the Audax into an enclosure of maybe around 15 liters and I would "vent" this chamber with 4 holes of around 3cm diameter and box wall thickness. However I would fill the chamber with stuffing and use felt layers over the vents. This will damp the resonance quite well. This can be tested using a Multimeter and a PC as signal generator. Then a single higpass capacitor can be used.
Maybe around 47uF & 3.3...3.9mH could work okay in the ballpark (in part to offset the rising midrange response of the Peavey woofer, add 8.2 Ohm and 10uF across the Peavey woofers terminals to compensate the rising impedance.
For an idea of how such a system may be assembled, look here:
Kenwood LS-1900 on TVK
Ciao T
Okay, to give a little more reasoning, as to why I think the 3-Way as suggested is a better choice:
1) This kind of speaker exists and is used in both PA and Studio Applications, pretty much for the last two decades, with similar horn tweeters and 15" Woofers complementing an Audax PR170M0.
The german Klang & Ton Mag had a design using all Audax Drivers (15" Audax pro Woofer, the earlier version of the PR170M0 and a horn tweeter not very different in nature to the Fostex), all with a 2nd order crossover at 500Hz and 5KHz.
2) One key determining factor in speaker sound in room is the off axis response. A 15" Driver will not do too well at higher frequencies, on the other hand the Ribbon will have a very wide dispersion just above the crossover. This means the off-axis response will be quite non-flat and the speaker will not sound well balanced, no matter what on-axis response simulations predict.
On the other hand the Audax Driver will match the off axis response of the Woofer quite well and will show an ever narrowing dispersion as frequency rises and it does so quite smoothly and the Fostex horn tweeters dispersion dovetails well with the Audax driver.
The net result is a speaker with a pretty flat on axis response and a response that smoothly falls off the more with rising frequency the more we move off axis. So the overall sound will be a little "warm".
3) Using (as I suggested) first order filters only means you have some leeway for errors. First order crossovers placed in an essentially linear frequency range of both drivers almost always work okay (unless grossly messed up), the higher order the crossover the larger the chance for things to go badly wrong.
So, I repeat, a basic 3-Way with your woofer, an Audax Wideband/Midrange and Fostex Horn Tweeter (mainly selected for low cost) with first order crossovers at around 400Hz and around 8KHz will actually give you a working speaker with a great likelyhood of sucess.
It may be in the end less good as the 2-Way with ribbon and all IF that speaker is gotten right "just so", but the likelyhood of getting it "just so" is small, unless you have a lot of experience, decent measurement gear and a lot of time.
You probably also would need to construct a waveguide for the Ribbon to control it's excessively wide horizontal dispersion which in turn usually means you need to restore the frequency response to flat by equalisation.
Trust me, it is not trivial. A 2-Way speaker looks easier, but that is only the case if you have a classic "2-Way" with a crossover at 2-4KHz and even these are not that easy.
My suggestions for a woofer enclosure BTW would mean a box of around 150 Liter in the golden ratio (seems around 90cm X 55cm X 38cm interior dimensions would seem okay) tuned to around 40Hz.
I would recommend a single slot port 35cm wide, 10cm high and 28cm deep at the very bottom of the box. This will give around 40Hz tuning.
I would as said place the Audax into an enclosure of maybe around 15 liters and I would "vent" this chamber with 4 holes of around 3cm diameter and box wall thickness. However I would fill the chamber with stuffing and use felt layers over the vents. This will damp the resonance quite well. This can be tested using a Multimeter and a PC as signal generator. Then a single higpass capacitor can be used.
Maybe around 47uF & 3.3...3.9mH could work okay in the ballpark (in part to offset the rising midrange response of the Peavey woofer, add 8.2 Ohm and 10uF across the Peavey woofers terminals to compensate the rising impedance.
For an idea of how such a system may be assembled, look here:
Kenwood LS-1900 on TVK
Ciao T
After sleeping on this I am warming up to the 3-way design, too. My concern is the response curve for the Peavey at and above 500 Hz.
I use the Audax PR170M0 in my own 3-way, so I have actual acoustic data at my command.
Where my thinking diverges is with the execution. Here are my issues:
1. I think the woofer enclosure should be tuned to 58 Hz. Reasons:
a. He intends to use a sub that he already has, so 58 Hz yields the maximally flat response.
b. 40 Hz will have an F3 well over 100 Hz and drops quickly after that. The sub should be able to manage with a higher Fb of 58 Hz.
2. I would not vent the Audax. You just don't need to. I cross my Audax at 400 Hz in a sealed .25 cubic foot box and it works perfectly. I can't see what would be different here if we choose the same crossover frequency.
Again, I would also worry about Xmax for the Audax in a vented enclosure, particularly for a first order filter. Have you looked at that?
Somewhere, I remember seeing a rational as to why it is generally not good practice to vent a mid, but if you have a compelling argument as to why in this specific case that makes sense, I would welcome hearing it. I was not able to model that specific configuration.
By the way, I appreciate your inputs!
Leo, can you give us details of the sub you have? That would help since it is going to be part of the system.
Last edited:
Hi,
If he lives in a typical US house (basically the one the big bad wolf would blow away, made from wood and sheetrock) then maximally flat is not good enough, he would need a major boost to get any bass in these excuses for dwellings.
If he lives in a proper house (brickwork, concrete etc.) maximally flat will lead to a significant lift at LF, with the result that we get the extra (and excessive) bass boom you get when you tune boxes maximally flat, as you now have room gain boosting the bass, the considerably less well damped maximally flat alignment booms happily and the room modes add theirs.
Plus, below the tuning frequency the power handling goes to hell in a handbasket rapidly. I suggested the 40Hz tuning mainly with a view to the lowest note on a traditional 4-string bass (often the lowest "power note" in music).
So sorry, but maximally flat, especially around 60Hz is a bad idea. Especially given the OP asked for a spealed box kind of sound. With maximally flat he gets exactly what he does not want. Using an EBS tuning gives enough bass in solid building and keeps what is there "tight" (better transient response). If the house is one of the US variety he can compensate the lack of bass using his sub.
You need to look at the composite response after the crossover has been applied. I suggested a slightly larger choke value than one would normally use. So the results in the complete speaker will not be what you happen to suggest they will be!
Remember I am suggesting a first order crossover? And one that does not compensate the Audax's fundamental resonance with an LCR Trap?
I did not suggest a vented box, but a in effect a heavily damped apperiodic enclosure. The reason for this is not to gain SPL, but to reduce the impedance peak at resonance as much as possible. And trust me, at least with low order crossovers this sounds better than a straight sealed box (transient behaviour).
Remember, it is not as such a reflex box. It is something much different.
And yes, I have.
Enough X-max to make an ungodly racket without overloading the Audax. Honest. I have used ton's of these 6.5" Audax's in Pro Audio applications, in practice, for domestic use 1st order is fine. And if you exceed the Xmax on the audax by a few mm (it can move that far) you get some gentle compression.
But have you got any idea how much sound come out of the Audax's with a 10W RMS Signal (e.g. Pink noise). It is VERY LOUD. If the peaks ara a little compressed at this point I would not loose sleep. Instead I'd likely reach for the volume control or earplugs.
Ciao T
If he lives in a typical US house (basically the one the big bad wolf would blow away, made from wood and sheetrock) then maximally flat is not good enough, he would need a major boost to get any bass in these excuses for dwellings.
If he lives in a proper house (brickwork, concrete etc.) maximally flat will lead to a significant lift at LF, with the result that we get the extra (and excessive) bass boom you get when you tune boxes maximally flat, as you now have room gain boosting the bass, the considerably less well damped maximally flat alignment booms happily and the room modes add theirs.
Plus, below the tuning frequency the power handling goes to hell in a handbasket rapidly. I suggested the 40Hz tuning mainly with a view to the lowest note on a traditional 4-string bass (often the lowest "power note" in music).
So sorry, but maximally flat, especially around 60Hz is a bad idea. Especially given the OP asked for a spealed box kind of sound. With maximally flat he gets exactly what he does not want. Using an EBS tuning gives enough bass in solid building and keeps what is there "tight" (better transient response). If the house is one of the US variety he can compensate the lack of bass using his sub.
You need to look at the composite response after the crossover has been applied. I suggested a slightly larger choke value than one would normally use. So the results in the complete speaker will not be what you happen to suggest they will be!
Remember I am suggesting a first order crossover? And one that does not compensate the Audax's fundamental resonance with an LCR Trap?
I did not suggest a vented box, but a in effect a heavily damped apperiodic enclosure. The reason for this is not to gain SPL, but to reduce the impedance peak at resonance as much as possible. And trust me, at least with low order crossovers this sounds better than a straight sealed box (transient behaviour).
Remember, it is not as such a reflex box. It is something much different.
And yes, I have.
Enough X-max to make an ungodly racket without overloading the Audax. Honest. I have used ton's of these 6.5" Audax's in Pro Audio applications, in practice, for domestic use 1st order is fine. And if you exceed the Xmax on the audax by a few mm (it can move that far) you get some gentle compression.
But have you got any idea how much sound come out of the Audax's with a 10W RMS Signal (e.g. Pink noise). It is VERY LOUD. If the peaks ara a little compressed at this point I would not loose sleep. Instead I'd likely reach for the volume control or earplugs.
Ciao T
Im sure the OP and myself are not intersted in 200+ year old ugly old concrete walls, thanks
If I wanted to see some old century structure I would watch the history channel.Any modern room has a wooden frame and sheet rock (How do you run cable to 8 rooms in your concrete layer?). These room of ours have great gain on their own (depending on their size) so your opinion is wrong. We can even take it a step further and build soundproof, dedicated HT Rooms (25x15) because we have 4000+sqft homes and not 1200sqft crawl spaces (now that is a serious excuse for a dwelling, My family room is 1300Sqft alone!!)
Now back to some thing real, Im not sure I follow your complaint about the F3 of the main speaker. He has subs and he is going to be crossing over at 80Hz, No? To get a flat XO at 80Hz he needs to have atleast an F3 around 60Hz, No?
I have 3 different DIY builds and they all are tuned to just under 60Hz (for the reasons mentioned above). I love my setup!! The OP will have zero problems.
That is cool, I didnt know that about the Audax.
Last edited:
Okay. I just want to make sure that we are building something that matches the use of a sub (whatever that turns out to be that Leo has).
It may also turn out that the sub is not workable, but we don't know what Leo has and in my mind it is too early to commit to a design until all the facts are in.
Typically, when I see someone try to tune a vented box below the woofer's Fs that raises flags with me. It is a typical mistake many do thinking that it will give them more and deeper bass. The end result is that it gives less bass presence and users quickly tap out the Xmax of the woofer very easily (particularly when you only have 2.6 mm to play with).
This driver in particular really needs a low frequency cutoff filter at the amp, but the type of sub will dictate what that is.
My experience with rooms is that you can also loose all your bass, too (mine does also). Perhaps I may be on the wrong track, but I typically design a system to be flat (within reason), then go after the room and make adjustments where I can. After that I am left with EQ, but it is the last tool I bring out.
My philosophy is that designing a flat loudspeaker is the best universal fit. People do not live their whole life in the same house or even the same room, so I want something that is a known baseline and then the rest is primarily left to room treatments.
I understand about the Audax and what you are proposing makes sense.
Hi,
In Europe we have always build buildings with solid walls, since roman times... The concept of a "modern" building being basically a slightly disguised rustic log cabin gives us the heebee jeebies.
In europe many people live in Apparments (soild walls) or in brick build terraced / detached houses.
ANY!? You may find yourself sadly mistake once you are outside the US.
I have heard them on more than a few occasion. A speaker that sounds "right" is such a room has way excessive bass in solid walled room. Honest. The sheetrock is almost transparent to low frequencies, the wood framing certainly is.
This is nearly as bad as the "Air-walls" I encounter pretty regularly in the hotels that stage audio exhibitions. We always have less of the bass in our room than the guy's next door have, I am talking about the bass generated by OUR system!.
More like F6 actually at 80Hz, unless you want to put an active crossover on the main speakers, something I would really not do. However, even if we go with "F3", are we talking about the F3 of the bare driver or that of the system with crossover?
If with crossover then my suggestion gives around 98dB/2.83V/1m (at 200Hz) and an F3 of 47Hz, with an F6 at 36Hz and F10 at 31Hz. As most rooms will have around 4-6dB LF lift (sheetrock ones excepted, unless surrounded by solid walls) at the 30...40Hz region the overall system will essentially be flat into the mid 30Hz region.
And the power handling remains above around 40W all the way down to 35Hz. With the alternative tuning we are dropping below 40W around 50Hz, right in the "power region" of some instruments and are at 10W at 35Hz.
You run these with an active highpass, yes? Try them without highpass and try the lower tuning, you may be surprised. But then again, you live in a sheetrock room, so maybe not...
Actually, this goes for pretty much all pro drivers. They can usually handle as much as 3-4 times X-Max before mechanical limits are reached and the suspension is designed to get progressively stiffer as the excursion increases (past Xmax.)
The Audax has a flat foam surround. This allows quite free movement around zero but gets very stiff as you start "pulling" by trying to push the excursion. At least in the 80's we were told that this is feature, not a bug and I think for Pro-Sound it is.
Ciao T
Im sure the OP and myself are not intersted in 200+ year old ugly old concrete walls, thanks
In Europe we have always build buildings with solid walls, since roman times... The concept of a "modern" building being basically a slightly disguised rustic log cabin gives us the heebee jeebies.
In europe many people live in Apparments (soild walls) or in brick build terraced / detached houses.
ANY!? You may find yourself sadly mistake once you are outside the US.
I have heard them on more than a few occasion. A speaker that sounds "right" is such a room has way excessive bass in solid walled room. Honest. The sheetrock is almost transparent to low frequencies, the wood framing certainly is.
This is nearly as bad as the "Air-walls" I encounter pretty regularly in the hotels that stage audio exhibitions. We always have less of the bass in our room than the guy's next door have, I am talking about the bass generated by OUR system!.
More like F6 actually at 80Hz, unless you want to put an active crossover on the main speakers, something I would really not do. However, even if we go with "F3", are we talking about the F3 of the bare driver or that of the system with crossover?
If with crossover then my suggestion gives around 98dB/2.83V/1m (at 200Hz) and an F3 of 47Hz, with an F6 at 36Hz and F10 at 31Hz. As most rooms will have around 4-6dB LF lift (sheetrock ones excepted, unless surrounded by solid walls) at the 30...40Hz region the overall system will essentially be flat into the mid 30Hz region.
And the power handling remains above around 40W all the way down to 35Hz. With the alternative tuning we are dropping below 40W around 50Hz, right in the "power region" of some instruments and are at 10W at 35Hz.
You run these with an active highpass, yes? Try them without highpass and try the lower tuning, you may be surprised. But then again, you live in a sheetrock room, so maybe not...
Actually, this goes for pretty much all pro drivers. They can usually handle as much as 3-4 times X-Max before mechanical limits are reached and the suspension is designed to get progressively stiffer as the excursion increases (past Xmax.)
The Audax has a flat foam surround. This allows quite free movement around zero but gets very stiff as you start "pulling" by trying to push the excursion. At least in the 80's we were told that this is feature, not a bug and I think for Pro-Sound it is.
Ciao T
Hi,
Well, I find that the more I can get out of the main speaker before I add subs the better the overall results and the easier it is to make the sub "disappear".
Why? I do it all the time and I don't get complaints...
A helmholz resonantor is a system, of which the driver is a part. You need to consider the whole system.
That it is. Using EBS Tuning you get a tighter, leaner and deeper bass than in maximum flat alignments. As speakers usually work in acoustically small rooms (unless they are PA systems) such a profile matches better with the room.
Using "maximum flat" gives indeed much more bass, but this bass is rarely of the kind of subjective quality that you get from sealed systems. Using EBS is somewhere inbetween, leaning in subjective terms more towards the sealed variety.
!!??
Presence is the region in the upper midrange?
We aretalking about a 15" Driver here, not a 5". While remaining within linear excursion (as mentioned, we are dealing with a pro driver here, so this is not a strict dictum) a single driver can produce 110dB/1m in my tuning down to 35Hz. Now 110dB peaks with most modern music is around 100dB average SPL. This is VERY loud.
If you tune for "maximum boom", oops, I meant maximum flat, yes, this unavoidable. In PA systems I would use a HPF, maybe even in a studio setting (just to be safe, some engineers are ejits). In a home setting I prefer to just tune quite low and find a happy balance between room gain, low tuning good sound.
Yes. As said, in this case the best idea would be to use the Sub to fill in the lost bass. My current living room is around 65m^2, all solid walls (no sheetrock and such tomfoolery here). I do not use a subwoofer and have some speakers with a decent 10" Woofer (vented, EBS of course) per side.
This system is around 92dB/W/m and I am using a Tube Amp with maybe 35W per channel. I need to get some basstraps, as the LF's are still a little too strong and the system goes loud enough with music and movies that I do not really want to turn it up more, so neighbours do not complain.
I design my speakers to be essentially flat in a room following the IEC recommendations for listening rooms (IEC 268-13, 1987).
Unless the users is very atypical the speakers then are also pretty flat in that room and no adjustment is needed.
Agreed. But if you want that a maximum flat LF response is the one that will be wrong most of the time. My commercial speaker system actually features some adjustibility of the LF system and of the HF section to allow a reasonable variations of rooms to be covered "flat".
Ciao T
Well, I find that the more I can get out of the main speaker before I add subs the better the overall results and the easier it is to make the sub "disappear".
Why? I do it all the time and I don't get complaints...
A helmholz resonantor is a system, of which the driver is a part. You need to consider the whole system.
That it is. Using EBS Tuning you get a tighter, leaner and deeper bass than in maximum flat alignments. As speakers usually work in acoustically small rooms (unless they are PA systems) such a profile matches better with the room.
Using "maximum flat" gives indeed much more bass, but this bass is rarely of the kind of subjective quality that you get from sealed systems. Using EBS is somewhere inbetween, leaning in subjective terms more towards the sealed variety.
!!??
Presence is the region in the upper midrange?
We aretalking about a 15" Driver here, not a 5". While remaining within linear excursion (as mentioned, we are dealing with a pro driver here, so this is not a strict dictum) a single driver can produce 110dB/1m in my tuning down to 35Hz. Now 110dB peaks with most modern music is around 100dB average SPL. This is VERY loud.
If you tune for "maximum boom", oops, I meant maximum flat, yes, this unavoidable. In PA systems I would use a HPF, maybe even in a studio setting (just to be safe, some engineers are ejits). In a home setting I prefer to just tune quite low and find a happy balance between room gain, low tuning good sound.
Yes. As said, in this case the best idea would be to use the Sub to fill in the lost bass. My current living room is around 65m^2, all solid walls (no sheetrock and such tomfoolery here). I do not use a subwoofer and have some speakers with a decent 10" Woofer (vented, EBS of course) per side.
This system is around 92dB/W/m and I am using a Tube Amp with maybe 35W per channel. I need to get some basstraps, as the LF's are still a little too strong and the system goes loud enough with music and movies that I do not really want to turn it up more, so neighbours do not complain.
I design my speakers to be essentially flat in a room following the IEC recommendations for listening rooms (IEC 268-13, 1987).
Unless the users is very atypical the speakers then are also pretty flat in that room and no adjustment is needed.
Agreed. But if you want that a maximum flat LF response is the one that will be wrong most of the time. My commercial speaker system actually features some adjustibility of the LF system and of the HF section to allow a reasonable variations of rooms to be covered "flat".
Ciao T
I have been to 40 countries and I have about 1 million air miles..You are confusing me with someone that lacks a lot of experience
I have also been to the worst parts of the world so lets just say we are both lucky to have what we have.
I didnt like and never was a fan of houses in many contries, you can not even run HDMI, Component video, Cat6 to all your rooms without running something covering the walls not very good for modern technology. I will take frame/drywall designs any day of the week...we are far more flexible when it comes to wanting to remodel or build a custom HT room. Exterior can still be poored concrete if people choose and I might do that for my next house build (I build every 5 years or so, My best friend is a builder hence my position in this debate. He builds very nice homes).
My HT room has great bass gain, you obvioulsy have not been in a good room that is built with frames and drywall. If you are building a system, build it for one or the other. No reason to assume a system built for your room will work in our rooms.
Harman, custom home theater builders and the rest of the experts that reside in the US will disagree with your assessment that our rooms suck for acoustics and bass gain. We have all the bass gain you ever need. Drywall is very, very reflective, we would not have nulls at 40Hz if it wasn't! Take a acoustical course to figure that one out
Show me the absorbtion numbers of drywall before we go any further. Heck signup on and post that opinion on this forum http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=19 (Several acoustical experts reside here). Better yet, Im going to post your opinion there to get some responses. Then we will know if you should just stick to speaker building and leave the US acoustic to other experts.
We do not need to continue in this thread on the OT. The OP will have just fine bass in his room...you should consider what he has and not what you want!
We do not concern ourselves with what other rooms hear either, If we do then we built a custom room that is complete sound proof. Yes you can do that with double drywall and "Greenglue", also they build a frame with in a frame to remove all vibrations from the existing walls.
You run these with an active highpass, yes? Try them without highpass and try the lower tuning, you may be surprised. But then again, you live in a sheetrock room, so maybe not...
I get what you are saying now but that isnt a good design. If we are integrating mains with subs we are going to use electronics with bass management to obtain the best in room response. Building mains and trying to integrate them with subs without Highpass (bass management electronics) is foolish.
Last edited:
Ah! Kindred spirits, I see!!! I built a KT88 amp with 6SN7s, but mine runs a little hotter than yours with a B+ of 525 VDC and 60 WPC.
My 3-way is of same SPL, but I use the JBL 2235H as the woofer, Audax PR170M0, and Morel MDT-37 tweeters.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
My home is concrete walls with drywall inside and a slab floor, which can be made to shake with the JBLs.
I'll take your lead on Leo's design, but I think we should wait for Leo to tell us what sub he has first.
Hi,
We can play one-upmanship if you like... ;-)
I have lived in quite a few countries for good stretches at a time and even for internal non-loadbearing walls Drywall is not the common standard.
So have I and agreed on that point.
Well, I use Power line Networking for the network, as for the rest, you sound like you are majorly into AV/Hometheater. I never saw the attraction. I do have a big screen and projector, but the sound sis strictly two channel. All that surround stuff is SO artificial and gimmicky, it even turned me mostly off going to the Cinemas.
That is because they lack comparisons - being US based (tongue firmly in cheek - ). Many quite expensive US Houses that do not have custom build Home Theater rooms have very poor acoustics, especially for bass. It escapes like starving peasants from north korea!
I did, let me think, around 23 years ago. And it concerned itself mainly with large halls and studios, but I do not think physics have changed since.
I suspect with a solid poured floor, at least one or two solid walls and a tight frame plus extra thinkness of sheetrock you can get pretty solid walls, it's just not what I come across quite regularly in the US. That includes dedicated dealers demo rooms and such!
More wooden frames.
In europe we do build a bit more solid, even for that (floating slab floor and second room literally brick build up is not uncommon for studios).
Let's just say that here we completely part company. You are going to use Bass management and I am going play a few of my favourite tracks and will complain it does not sound good, so I do not use bass management, unless I must to protect speakers from abuse in professional settings.
Funny. I always see it the other way around. I never use a high-pass on the main speakers (note, I am of course talking 2.0 for Music) and any sub-woofer feed is speaker level from the speakers (and of course 2 subs).
I guess I'm a Tubes/Vinyl/Stereo throwback and just could not care less on all that Home Theater gig. In fact, to say that so far each and every mutlichannel HT demo (even with Music Video's) has had me leave quickly is probably being polite...
Which is probably why we have so different approaches to how we handle our systems.
Ciao T
I have been to 40 countries and I have about 1 million air miles..You are confusing me with someone that lacks a lot of experience
We can play one-upmanship if you like... ;-)
I have lived in quite a few countries for good stretches at a time and even for internal non-loadbearing walls Drywall is not the common standard.
So have I and agreed on that point.
Well, I use Power line Networking for the network, as for the rest, you sound like you are majorly into AV/Hometheater. I never saw the attraction. I do have a big screen and projector, but the sound sis strictly two channel. All that surround stuff is SO artificial and gimmicky, it even turned me mostly off going to the Cinemas.
That is because they lack comparisons - being US based (tongue firmly in cheek -
). Many quite expensive US Houses that do not have custom build Home Theater rooms have very poor acoustics, especially for bass. It escapes like starving peasants from north korea!Take a acoustical course to figure that one out
I did, let me think, around 23 years ago. And it concerned itself mainly with large halls and studios, but I do not think physics have changed since.
I suspect with a solid poured floor, at least one or two solid walls and a tight frame plus extra thinkness of sheetrock you can get pretty solid walls, it's just not what I come across quite regularly in the US. That includes dedicated dealers demo rooms and such!
More wooden frames.
In europe we do build a bit more solid, even for that (floating slab floor and second room literally brick build up is not uncommon for studios).
Let's just say that here we completely part company. You are going to use Bass management and I am going play a few of my favourite tracks and will complain it does not sound good, so I do not use bass management, unless I must to protect speakers from abuse in professional settings.
Funny. I always see it the other way around. I never use a high-pass on the main speakers (note, I am of course talking 2.0 for Music) and any sub-woofer feed is speaker level from the speakers (and of course 2 subs).
I guess I'm a Tubes/Vinyl/Stereo throwback and just could not care less on all that Home Theater gig. In fact, to say that so far each and every mutlichannel HT demo (even with Music Video's) has had me leave quickly is probably being polite...
Which is probably why we have so different approaches to how we handle our systems.
Ciao T
Last edited:
Hi,
I could have run mine at 100W (Pentode with cathode feedback), but i did not like the sound too well. I'm more an SE Amp kind of person, but my current speakers need a bit more juice than these manage.
My Amp uses screengrid and cathode feedback only, no global loop feedback. Concertina Phasesplitter (uses an obscure russian tube, think 5687 Black plate on an octal socket) and single gainstage with ECC83. Silverfoil coupling caps.
I like the JBL's, many studio monitors I used had these. The MDT-37 is an interesting alternative to the usual high frequency drivers, but the only domes I ever kind of liked where/are the Focal inverted Domes...
My Speakers use a 5" widband driver and a circular magnetoplanar tweeter. Look more ordinary. You can see the system here:
Audio Asylum - Inmate Systems
Nice.
Yes, agreed. I'd probably still aim at doing as much as possible without Subs.
Ciao T
Ah! Kindred spirits, I see!!! I built a KT88 amp with 6SN7s, but mine runs a little hotter than yours with a B+ of 525 VDC and 60 WPC.
I could have run mine at 100W (Pentode with cathode feedback), but i did not like the sound too well. I'm more an SE Amp kind of person, but my current speakers need a bit more juice than these manage.
My Amp uses screengrid and cathode feedback only, no global loop feedback. Concertina Phasesplitter (uses an obscure russian tube, think 5687 Black plate on an octal socket) and single gainstage with ECC83. Silverfoil coupling caps.
I like the JBL's, many studio monitors I used had these. The MDT-37 is an interesting alternative to the usual high frequency drivers, but the only domes I ever kind of liked where/are the Focal inverted Domes...
My Speakers use a 5" widband driver and a circular magnetoplanar tweeter. Look more ordinary. You can see the system here:
Audio Asylum - Inmate Systems
Nice.
Yes, agreed. I'd probably still aim at doing as much as possible without Subs.
Ciao T
Funny. I always see it the other way around. I never use a high-pass on the main speakers (note, I am of course talking 2.0 for Music) and any sub-woofer feed is speaker level from the speakers (and of course 2 subs).
I guess I'm a Tubes/Vinyl/Stereo throwback and just could not care less on all that Home Theater gig. In fact, to say that so far each and every mutlichannel HT demo (even with Music Video's) has had me leave quickly is probably being polite...
Which is probably why we have so different approaches to how we handle our systems.
Ciao T
You have no data to back up your extremely subjective opinion about in room response of custom built rooms so we can just leave that little debate alone. Its obvious you are very stubborn and very set in your ways. Good thing the OP has you to help him, lets hope the OP doesnt realize the potential design flaws in not using proper bass management
Im also still talking about music and I stopped doing 2.0 when AutoEQ and Bass Management started outperforming it based on measurements and in room sound quality. Using the proper tools we will have better measurements then you will ever have with just a simple analog 2.0 setup. We have evolved from the old throwback vinyl days we want ultimate measurements, including specific curves and ultimate sound. Bass is controlled and positioned separately from mains if you want the best in room response. If you do not care about the science then no worries do it the "throwback" way
To run the subwoofer through the main outputs is foolish but too each his own. Its not my setup so good luck to him
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.